Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas May 8, 1986
JIM MAlTOX
Attorney General
Honorable Mark W. ljtlles Opinion No. JM-490 Chairman Supreme Court Building P. 0. BOX 12545 Re: \Jhether a school dlstricc Budget and 0versi:ht Committee Austin. TX. 78711-2548 may expend funds to enploy croz- Texas House of Re?:cesentativcs 512/4?5-2501 sing guards at incersoccions P.O. Box 2910 Telex 910/874-1367 Austin. Texas 7 3'769 which do noz abur school dis- Telecopier 512l475.0266 trict property 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dear Representatim Stiles: Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 214l7428944
You ask whether an independent school district ma); expend schccl funds to employ xossing guards to assist students at interseccians
4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 that do not abut school discricc premises. El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 9154533-3484 The Educaricn Code describes the expenditures rhat may hue: ~=ade
out of local school funda: 1001 Texas. Suite 700 tiouston. TX. 77002~3111 Iocal schcol funds from district taxes, tultior. -- 713/223.5&5 fees of pupils not entitled to free tuition and . other lwal sources may be used for the purposes enumerated for state and county funds and for pur- 606 Broadway, Suite 312 chasing appliances and supplies, for the paywnt rf Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 SOSi747~5238 insurance premiums, janitors and other employees,
for buying school sites, buying, building and repairing and renting school houses, and for or&r --- 4309 N. Tenth. Suite S purposes-necessary in the conduct of the pul~llc McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 5121682.4547 schools to bz determined by the board of trustees,
'the accornts and vouchers for count!: districts tc be approved by the county superincmdent; provided, 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 that whr!n the scxte available school fund in any San Antonio. TX. 78205-2797 city or district is sufficient to maintain the 512,225-4191 schools thereof in any year for at laast eight months, and leave a surplus, such surplus may ba An Equal Opportunity/ expended for the purposes mentioned herein. Affirmative Action Employer (Emphasis added).
Educ. Code §20.4tN(c). Your question assumes that crossing guards at intersections th;.t abut public school premises are "necessary in the conduct of the Ilublic schools." We chink yoil are correct in that assumption, but we perceive no basis for concluding that crossing guards are only wcessary at intersections chat actually abut school premises. An expenditure of school funds for a cafeteria has been held to be wooer because a cafeteria may be necrssarv for the welfare . . of students. Bozeman V. Norrow, 34 S.W.!?d 654, 656-57 (Tex. Civ. App. --
p. 2237
Iionorable Mark W. Stiles - page 2 (JM-490)
- El Paso 1931, no writ). We thfnk that crossing guards rright be equally necessary for the weltare of students. Of course, determinjrlg whether and where crossing guards are necessary Is a matter for the discretion of school boazds. See Aitorney General Opinicr 8-133 - (1973).
It has been suggesr::d that El Paso County Community College District V. City of El Paso, 698 S.W.2d 248, 252 (Tex. App. - Austin 1985, writ granted), may stand for the propositioc that a scho.21 district may not expend fnlds for crossing guards. The holding of chat case is that an Independent school district is not a "political subdivision" within the ,meaning of a constzutional urovision governing tax increment financing. The court supported its holding by pointing out that if a school district were a political subdivision for purposes of tax increment fiilancing, school funda could be spent for a prcject to br paid :Eor through tax increment financing even though the protect had no educational purpose. The court did not consider the question of tiwther any particular use of funds was for school purposes. The tour: merely noted that it was undisputed that the tax increment financ,Log plan in question, which ca;lrd for improvement of city parking; facilities and rerouting of city streets, would enhance no education;%1 facility and involved no educaticcal purpose. In other words, the only relevance of the case to your question is that it recit,ed the well-established rule that school funds may be used oniy fcr school purposes.
SUMMARY School district funds may be used to pay for crossing guards,, Derzrmining where crossing guards are necessary is a matter within the discretion of school boards.
Very truly yours J ,hca 3 I MkT T 0 I: Artorney General of Texas ,TACK HIGHTOWFR
First Assistant Attorney Genseral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney Zenera
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Codttee
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 2238